If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think what Rush said was inappropriate and rude, but he's free under the first amendment to say it. If sponsors don't like it, they are free to stop sponsoring his show.

As far as the argument about the insults to Breitbart and all-it's no wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in this country-we are all too busy justifying our bad behavior as responses to someone on the other side's behavior. So what if some dumbass insulted Breitbart? I'm a liberal and I didn't insult him. I'm not responsible for what the DUmbasses say. So what if Rush insulted Sandra Fluke-he doesn't speak for all conservatives.

That is not why the response to liberal gasbags. Liberal gasbags feign outrage over this stuff and get their gushing, adoring cheerleaders in the media to hype it like Carney hawkers. Conservatives are cataloging the hypocrisy and faux outrage using past liberal antics that were met with indifference and apathy. Where is O Blah Blah apologizing to Sarah Palin? Has Bill Sew- uh, Maher apologized or defended Rush? Why didn't the media close ranks and attack him? Maher routinely says vile, hateful things toward Conservatives yet where is the joke of a media with respect to his comments?

Last edited by AmPat; 03-05-2012 at 08:46 PM.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

At $ 3,000 a year for BC, Ms.Fluke is spending $ 8.21 a day.
Max, Birth Control Pills cost $ 50 a month, which comes out to $ 1.66 a day.
So Ms.Fluke is get an extra $ 6.55 a day.
Now if she bought a 36 pk of Trojon condoms every month, it would cost Ms.Fluke 64 cents a day; still leaving Ms. Fluke, $ 5.91 a day. If Ms. Fluke were to also use an IUD ( at the cost of $650 and it lasted for seven years) that would cost $ 3 a day, leaving $ 2.91. Now if Ms. Fluke were to also use a spermicide, at $ 1.50 dollars a day it would still leave Ms. Fluke $ 1. 41.

This woman could buy four different kinds of birth control and still have $ 541 left over.

Either Ms. Fluke is really paranoid about getting pregant, or someone out there is not being totally truthful.

At $ 3,000 a year for BC, Ms.Fluke is spending $ 8.21 a day.
Max, Birth Control Pills cost $ 50 a month, which comes out to $ 1.66 a day.
So Ms.Fluke is get an extra $ 6.55 a day.
Now if she bought a 36 pk of Trojon condoms every month, it would cost Ms.Fluke 64 cents a day; still leaving Ms. Fluke, $ 5.91 a day. If Ms. Fluke were to also use an IUD ( at the cost of $650 and it lasted for seven years) that would cost $ 3 a day, leaving $ 2.91. Now if Ms. Fluke were to also use a spermicide, at $ 1.50 dollars a day it would still leave Ms. Fluke $ 1. 41.

This woman could buy four different kinds of birth control and still have $ 541 left over.

Either Ms. Fluke is really paranoid about getting pregant, or someone out there is not being totally truthful.

That last part is entirely understandable. The world would be a better place if shrill, hysterical radicals were afraid of reproducing.

Originally Posted by Novaheart

Those are not garden variety housewives, appropriately they are "The Real Housewives of New Jersey.

Yes, but you have a habit of citing the extreme to attack the norm when it comes to marriage, while pretending that the exceptions in gay marriage, monogamous, stable relationships, are the norm.

That is not why the response to liberal gasbags. Liberal gasbags feign outrage over this stuff and get their gushing, adoring cheerleaders in the media to hype it like Carney hawkers. Conservatives are cataloging the hypocrisy and faux outrage using past liberal antics that were met with indifference and apathy. Where is O Blah Blah apologizing to Sarah Palin? Has Bill Sew- uh, Maher apologized or defended Rush? Why didn't the media close ranks and attack him? Maher routinely says vile, hateful things toward Conservatives yet where is the joke of a media with respect to his comments?

Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.

God only knows why you think Obama owes Caribou Barbie an apology. There are some dumbasses in the media who probably owe her an apology for the nasty comments about her son who has Down's Syndrome, but the closest thing to an obnoxious comment I remember Obama making about her is the "lipstick on a pig" one, which is one of those turns of phrases that some of her supporters decided was a personal attack.

Do you consider Bill Maher to be a legitimate political commentator? He's a comedian who makes political jokes on a network in which he isn't censored. I don't expect him to apologize to Rush or Rush to apologize to him for anything either one says. Except for Maher's profanity, he and Rush are really not so different in any way except their political leanings. They're both blowhards and druggies, they just have different drugs of choice.

First, one must be funny to be a comedian, but that aside, you miss the point again. Maher makes his vile comments, passes them off as "jokes", and gets no faux outrage from the media or O Blah Blah. Rush makes a comment using absurd statements and hyperbole, and it takes over the news as though we had nothing else to worry about. Nice liberal deflection away from real problems, but hardly national news worthy material.

God only knows why you think Obama owes Caribou Barbie an apology. There are some dumbasses in the media who probably owe her an apology for the nasty comments about her son who has Down's Syndrome, but the closest thing to an obnoxious comment I remember Obama making about her is the "lipstick on a pig" one, which is one of those turns of phrases that some of her supporters decided was a personal attack.

Well let's just start with why the Idiot In Chief feels it necessary to comment on the liberal Fluke of a plant who got outed trying to pass herself off as a young poor student, who apparently screws so many men she can't afford a dollar condom. She never thought about telling her partner, "You want sum dis? You shell out for da rubber."

Your hero the zero can't contain his enthusiasm to rush into camera range to comment for a liberal and against a Conservative. Where is the moron when the shoe is on the other foot? Oh, I know----The golf course.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

I think what Rush said was inappropriate and rude, but he's free under the first amendment to say it. If sponsors don't like it, they are free to stop sponsoring his show.

As far as the argument about the insults to Breitbart and all-it's no wonder nothing ever gets accomplished in this country-we are all too busy justifying our bad behavior as responses to someone on the other side's behavior. So what if some dumbass insulted Breitbart? I'm a liberal and I didn't insult him. I'm not responsible for what the DUmbasses say. So what if Rush insulted Sandra Fluke-he doesn't speak for all conservatives.

I pretty much agree with you. He was making a very strained and over-stretched analogy, and kept digging when he should have just gone on to another tack. BFD.

Yes, but you have a habit of citing the extreme to attack the norm when it comes to marriage, while pretending that the exceptions in gay marriage, monogamous, stable relationships, are the norm.

What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum. All I have ever emphasized is that those who oppose marriage equality, in their attempt to do so without sounding like religious idiots generally promote a best (in their opinion) case scenario for heterosexual marriage against a worst case scenario for gay marriage. Of course what they can't do is demonstrate why it's any of their business if two people of the same sex get married and enjoy equal status in that marriage to heterosexuals. Instead, the bigots jump through hoops to try to justify their position which is simply and inarguably based in what has to be deliberate ignorance.

Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

While you were hanging yourself , on someone else's words
Dying to believe in what you heard
I was staring straight into the shining sun

Then we have folks like yourself, who so desperately seek the acceptance of your acquired tribe that you eschew your native intellectual and objective approach in exchange for the admiration of those raised in a culture of ignorance.

Projection? Thy name is Novaidiot.

Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.C. S. LewisDo not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:Ayn Rand

What an absurd allegation on your part; I would never have maintained that monogamy was the statistical majority in marriage whether heterosexual or homosexual. As such the degree to which that is applicable is irrelevant, since the norm is that there is a spectrum.

The rest snipped.

Far be it from me to intrude on yet another advocate for homosexual "marriage", but I'm intrigued by this statement.

You mean to say that there is no "normal" or statistical "average" when examining heterosexual marriage and monogamy?